Re: [PATCH 1/6] Use correct types to enable > 2G support

[Fabrice Bellard <fabrice-+Yn2HnRVxb5AfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>]

Paul Brook wrote:
>>> I agree with the fact that ram_size should be 64 bit. Maybe each
>>> machine could test the value and emit an error message if it is too
>>> big. Maybe an uint64_t would be better though.
>> uint64_t is probably more reasonable.  I wouldn't begin to know what the
>> appropriate amount of ram was for each machine though so I'll let the
>> appropriate people handle that :-)
> 
> I'd say ram_addr_t is an appropriate type.
> Currently this is defined in cpu-defs.h. It should probably be moved elsewhere 
> because in the current implementation it's really a host type.
> 
> If we ever implement >2G ram on a 32-bit host this may need some rethinking.  
> We can deal with that if/when it happens though.  Requiring a 64-bit host for 
> large quantities of ram seems an acceptable limitation (N.B. I'm only talking 
> about ram size, not target physical address size).

I agree.

Fabrice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/